The unkindest cut of all
'The movement against infant male circumcision continues to grow'
BY MARILYN LINTON

Toronto Sun

Infant male circumcision -- a common surgical procedure to remove part or all of the foreskin of a penis -- is unnecessary, trauma-inducing, painful and an invasion of human rights. So say people in the controversial anti-circumcision movement that has grown in strength over the last few years -- particularly south of the border.

U.S. statistics report that circumcision is the most common surgery performed (one every 30 seconds). It's usually done before a baby is one week old and, while attitudes are changing, the operation traditionally has been performed without anesthesia, although these days local anesthetic by injection into the penis or a topical cream is recommended.

Today, critics of the procedure say that in addition to the pain and trauma experienced by infants, most parents are unaware and poorly prepared for what the procedure entails. Babies, naked and fully conscious, are placed into a circumstraint where their limbs are bound, while tissue is sliced from the tips of their penises.

Dr. George Denniston, a Harvard University-trained, Washington physician and founder of Doctors Opposing Circumcision -- an organization with members throughout North America -- says that doctors have no right being involved with the procedure which he says violates the American Medical Association's code of ethics. "It's not disease related and surgery is the removal or repair of diseased tissue," says Denniston. "It's a totally unnecessary procedure.

'PROTECTS GLANS'

"The foreskin is approximately half the size of the skin of the adult penis. We wouldn't think of doing this to our puppies, so why do it to our sons?" adds Denniston. "The foreskin protects the glans during infancy. (As a physician) I'm supposed to be protecting your body integrity. Do I have the right to cut off your ear? Of course not!"

Wisconsin pediatrician Dr. Robert Van Howe says that in his research on the subject, the various claims of benefits attributed to neo-natal circumcision had very little basis. "The level of knowledge among North American physicians is pretty low," says Van Howe, who was a consultant to the American Medical Association on the subject of infant circumcision.

"The risk of immediate complication like bleeding and infection are two to six per cent," he adds. "Some of these complications are minor, but people have died from circumcision and people have lost their entire penis."

Some kids cry so hard they rupture their bladders or stomach, Van Howe says. And while those instances are rare, the risk to benefit ratio appears questionable, he adds, considering this is "a procedure that's done without any clear medical indication."

"I attended a ritual circumcision in the '80s and found it to be distressing," says Ron Goldman of Jewish Associates at the Circumcision Resource Center in Boston. "I heard the infant's helpless scream and felt this was an unnecessary pain and trauma."

Just because a practice has been around for centuries doesn't mean it's not harmful. "Look at slavery. It's existed for thousands of years," he says, adding that it's important for doctors and parents to be open to new information and to question past assumptions.

"One of the myths in the Jewish community is that all Jews are circumcised," adds Goldman, a psychologist and author of Circumcision: The Hidden Trauma and Questioning Circumcision: A Jewish Perspective (both published by Vanguard). He maintains that circumcision is a matter of debate among rabbis, that more and more Jews are questioning it, and that outside North America, circumcision is by no means universal among Jews.

The horrors of female circumcision and the memory of his own circumcision at age nine led California teacher Billy Ray Boyd to examine the history and cultural traditions of the practice. In his book, Circumcision Exposed (Crossing Press), Boyd traces the history of non-religious circumcision, a procedure he calls "an operation in search of a disease."

MASTURBATION

In the last century, the practice was popular because it was believed to discourage boys and men from masturbation. In the early 1900s, physicians believed that circumcision prevented cervical cancer in women; in the 1940's, the theory was that uncircumcised men had a higher risk of prostate cancer; in the 1980s, it was thought circumcised boys had fewer urinary tract infections. Risks of contracting AIDS and penile cancer were also thought to be higher among uncircumcised men.

None of those theories hold water today, says Van Howe, rhyming off countless studies disproving the previously claimed benefits of the procedure.

Even the famous baby doctor, Benjamin Spock, who advocated circumcision in his early books, later changed his stand. In a magazine article he wrote in 1989, he said if he had another son, he "would leave his little penis alone."

"Male circumcision has been trivialized because it's not as severe as female circumcision," says Boyd, who also states that male circumcision is not only painful, but also makes the penis less sensitive sexually.

Dr. Denniston explains that the foreskin, with thousands of nerve endings like in the lips, contributes to sexual pleasure. He proposes that one reason impotence numbers may be so high in North America have to do with so many men being circumcised. "Remove half the skin of the penis and you get sexual problems -- that's logical." The foreskin protects the head of the penis from abrasion and drying out. "It's highly errogenous tissue," Goldman maintains.

If the "no-circ" crusaders are right, why do parents and physicians continue to destroy what one uncircumcised man calls the "snake's turtle-neck sweater?"

The Canadian Pediatric Society's position paper on the subject states there are no valid medical reasons to circumcise.

"But we follow the wishes of the family," says Dr. Roland Beaulieu, chair of the Ontario Medical Association's pediatric section. "Some families from different cultural and religious groups such as Jews and Muslims still believe in routine circumcision. In Toronto, with our diverse cultural society, we often support the parents in their decisions. Most physicians, however, do not advocate it on their own."